As entertaining as this saga is, on some level the pace and redundancy is incredibly frustrating. Judges are still pointing out inconsistencies in their testimony and demanding explanations for why they shouldn't pay slap-on-the-wrist fees... when their criminality and deceit is glaringly and obnoxiously obvious. We shouldn't still be watching them squirm and embarrass themselves in court at this point, likely with all their gains squirreled away into off-shore accounts. At this point we should be reading about the manner in which their anuses are being passed around the cell block like a chew toy at an animal shelter.

Nice to see the new Iranian diplomatic corps trying to put on a pleasant public face. Now we just need the Revolutionary Guard leadership to send their orders to Iraqi militants for retaliatory strikes via twitter, so we can all discuss and provide feedback.

Most smart phones allow you to read emails. If someone responds by email saying "I'm driving..." are you legally or ethically obligated to refrain from sending further emails?

If no, you need to specify exactly why a text message (which beeps when it arrives and is distracting to read) is somehow different than an email (which also beeps when it arrives and is also distracting to read).

If yes... well, then you've gone off the rails of reasonable thinking. Next stop, suing your Aunt Sally because she sent you the birthday card you were reading when you were sideswiped while pulling away from the mailbox at the end of your driveway.

What utter rot. All of the features the second-guess crowd are wailing about are able to be implemented WITHOUT the restrictive, demanding or often crippling aspects of DRM that are rightfully being removed. If Microsoft chooses not to implement them, it's either laziness, lack of foresight... or bitter, resentful attempts at punishing the playerbase.

Why? Why do I need to always be online in order to play games I already own? Why can't I choose to leave the network and play MY games, being as how I (like any serious gamer) couldn't give a flying turd about "achievement" bubbles popping up? Why can't I play a game without being harassed about creating an online account so I can be blitzed with advertisements for DLC?
Why can't I have digital files and hard copies and let them be treated differently for the purposes of piracy and sharing? Why can't I choose whether or not I want the convenience of digital ownership at the price of it transforming into nothing but a license rental?

I'm amazed at how many people come off as industry shills, as though Microsoft couldn't give us what we want if they really wanted to.. as though we've killed their goose and they're now unable to provide customer-centric service.

Congratulations... you've now reached the point of spamming and trolling where no one cares or even remembers what you're complaining about. You could expose Mike in an egregious lie on one of your pastebin rants, and it would still go straight to /dev/null. You've completely invalidated yourself, and there's literally nothing you can do to get back from that.

Unless you're Mike's alt meant to drum up activity, in which case... joke's old man.

I realize many of you come to these comments sections to hear a troll spout nonsense and other people rip him apart for it... and I can understand the entertainment value to a certain degree... I think we all need to acknowledge that the lettuce has spoiled long ago. Let's stop giving celebrity status to the same message board cretins and try to elevate the discussion to something more entertaining or expansive.

Or at the very least, let's hold out for some new, more entertaining trolls.

We view free video sharing sites as we do radio... the goal is exposure, generating attention and interest and (one hopes) translating that into secondary sales/profits for additional content or value. I think it's fair to say a paywall (particularly $2 per channel) would reduce views/subscriptions by at least 95% right up front, probably closer to 98 or 99% in the long term when you consider the millions of casual views. That's millions of opportunities to create customers lost because you're treating the video itself as the product.

Only the best, most innovative and most dedicated/updated channels will be able to generate enough subscriptions to be profitable... and they'll have to have an extremely strong brand or high popularity before secluding themselves behind the paywall. Frankly I can't think of 50 channels that fit that bill... and they're calling this a first step.

Either they're trying to sell themselves as a vehicle for big media to use, the way Facebook supplanted many companies' websites, or they're going to have to lower the price and bundle the homegrown content to make it appealing.

... that EA has no fear whatsoever. And why should they? They can essentially utter the game industry version of "Go F*** yourself, San Diego"... and they will continue to make boatloads of money from fans whose consumerism and flashy-game addiction will always win over principles and precedents.

I hope I'm not the only one who read "dp you legally" and immediately thought of lewd sexual references. I spent 3 seconds wondering how one guy could accomplish that, and another 7 seconds wondering if that really is illegal in Louisiana.

If Pfizer didn't report a known side effect, that's definitely incriminating. I didn't see mention in the article as to whether users of the name-brand version were also reporting these symptoms.

As much as I'm not a fan of big pharma, I wonder.... would the company that patented a particular cell phone technology be held responsible once that patent had expired if other companies duplicating that technology exactly to specification created products that caused brain cancer?

It's probably unreasonable to demand that generic drug companies perform their own testing, especially after the drug has been FDA-approved and in use for 20 years.... but on the other hand it is their product.

Mrs. Johnson,
I'm aware the essay I turned in for this assignment was substandard, but current copyright ownership issues make it impossible for me to relinquish my best effort and still reserve the right to reuse or rework said essay professionally later in life. Though I cannot show you the genuine essay lest I disadvantage myself financially or creatively, please take my word for it that I completed the assignment with A+ quality and adjust my grade accordingly.

"The UCMJ also states a serviceman does not have to obey orders which are not lawful."

Boojum already covered this. Lawful is in accordance with the current laws, in this case the UCMJ, which his actions were not. He has the option to refuse to participate in transmitting data he felt represented an unlawful action, or to escalate to an authority on interpreting the "lawfulness" of the order... but neither would authorize him to proactively broadcast confidential data on the internet.

Even diehard proponents of whistleblowing (as I am) have to acknowledge it's not possible to give people free reign to determine how best to proceed and what un-ordered actions to take in a given situation when you have even the slightest hope of a successful and cohesive organizational structure, much less corporate or national security.

If I deposit a large sum of cash and the bank teller suspects I might be a drug dealer, and the bank president orders them to simply do their job... they do not have the right as a whistleblower to make a webpage with my personal info laden with accusations. There are appropriate and often legally established methods for objecting and attempting to expose corruption. Bradly Manning did what he did, HOW he did, for one reason... he wanted to be a counter-culture leet haxor hero.

In the fantastical mythical world of reason, rationality, cause and effect..... what happens next is ServerBeach loses all of their clients who sub-host and a few of the others who have moral convictions, and see a very hurtful (potentially damaging) drop in revenue. And all the other hosting companies across the kingdom tread lightly and thoughtfully, fearing a similar fate.

Meanwhile, in reality, the peasants go on gnawing on the crusty loaf of apathy... and an academic publishing company congratulates itself for not "losing" more money by helping to foster an appreciation for education in students that might one day result in the kinds of adults who might actually read and buy academic or educational books.

Interesting. So the question: How long will OpenStreetMap allow their services and bandwidth be used for free by other companies to make money off of consumers? ... may really boil down to "How long will the Google competitors supporting this endeavor help subsidize the shift in power?"

It will take many, many years for Google to lose the general audience on Google Maps. People are still using AOL while on broadband... there's really no other explanation than extreme consumer inertia. Losing the big companies is definitely a PR hit and results in less visibility, but I'm sure they crunched the numbers. As long as Google Maps is fully integrated with the rest of their products, and as long as they don't fall too far behind OSM in terms of usability and features, they're probably just waiting for the competitors to feel the pain of having to provide free maps while other companies use them to get rich.